Water landing PBY's

[Nathan]

Looking at the post of the sinking PBY, I came up with a question.

Do current owners of PBY's today usually still land or take off from water in their PBY's when available? Or do they usually not do that as much because of the added wear it would put on the airframe?

Silly question I know, but.......

Thanks,
Nathan

[PhantomAce08]

I think some still land in water. I just know it is really expensive to mantain one in that condition

[Jack Cook]

Tillamook's PBY was landed a few times in a inland bay near the D River at Linclon City, OR.
To get out they basically backed it up almost aground pointed into the wind. Sound like trouble to you?? The last time they did it they gunned it before the tow rope was released sinking the boat and dragging it underwater like they were troling for tuna. Then they hit a dock ripping a large gash under the cockpit on the left side (yes, there's a patch there). They filled the hole with a foam and flew it out empty on a very windy day. Yes, this really happened! I don't have enough imagination to make this crazy story up.

[hairy]

The operational PBY here in NZ (ZK-PBY) is regularly operated on water.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0560553/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0539724/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0542208/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0162444/L/

If only it had a nose turret.

[B25PBYGUY]

There is still one Cat I know of - a Super - that is still tanked and operates under a State contract. Naturally, it lands on the water to scoop. Most operators today - save Connie Edwards - do not place the airplane on the water. I have flown the Fighter Factory PBY since its been returned here to the States and we dont perform water ops because its insurance prohibitive due to a substantial additional cost. It remains seaworthy however.
The PBY, by modern standards - and recall this is a 1935 hydro-dynamic design - handles poorly on the water and operates in a relatively narrow envelope. I'm also typed in the Albatross and both the CL-215 and CL-415 and each of these outclasses the next in water handling characteristics. The Grumman Mallard isnt the best on the water when heavy, but the turbine conversion fares better than the recip.
Anyway, its mostly insurance driven. One 3 million dollar "working" CL-215 can run about 182K a year for coverage. And thats with 2 souls on board. And, as one OR poster described, there are some operators who dont belong on the water due to lack of experience, ability, or incapacity. There have been several PBY accidents in the last 25 yrs. that have most likely raised the rates for all operators.
Just some quick comments...

[PhantomAce08]

What was this from?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?rurl=forum.flightlevel350.com&oid=5844bb58e9ccd0b8&

[dj51d]

That clip is from the movie Always with Richard Dreyfuss and John Goodman.

[PhantomAce08]

Thanks... I've seen that clip for a while and was wondering.

Is the movie good?

[DanteC]

Thanks... I've seen that clip for a while and was wondering.

Is the movie good?

Not bad...Lots of A-26's, PBY, and I believe a C-82 or -119

[mennie]

Here in Holland you can book a round trip including a “Splash & Go”, the wet version of a touch & go.
I've heared that it's underpowered with the wheels out so it's prefered to land it on water.

[Octo68]

Two weeks ago in Geneva, graet pics, the rest of the forum worth a look:

http://www.foxalpha.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11228

Have a nice day !

[treadigraph]

Lovely pics Octo68, one clould almost imagine that they've dropped a depth charge in Pic #7

[Ztex]

The other reason for such interest was that the Cat performed four water landings on Lake Geneva during the run up to the exhibition, the first time that a flying boat had landed on the lake since 1948!

WOW!

That's cool.

Great pictures, Thanks.

[TimAPNY]

Those are the best Cat shots I've seen in a long time, if ever!

Tim

[marine air]

Notes on the Catalina: The Catalina was not originally designed as a land based plane, but a true flying boat in 1935. The first five models were true flying boats with the -5A having tricycle landing gear . The Aussies preferred the straight 5 model and converted some of their 5A's back to water only status. It was surely a lot lighter and possibly easier to fly the early models on water than the later models. The PBY was a considered cutting edge military technology for it's day. It could haul 12,000 lbs, 3000 miles nonstop in about a day. Remember, the U.S. still had horse drawn artillery and cavalry meant riding horses as jeeps had not been invented. Military aircraft were typically fabric covered and open cockpit and flown mostly in daylight conditions.
The Albatross is great on water, I'm told and it is forgiving of mistakes. The PBY has a good safety record on land and abysmal record on water when operated by civilians. I bet it had a lot of water accidents in U.S. military service also, although all Navy and Marine pilots were trained in seaplane flying until this was dropped (for all students) at the beginning of WW.II unless they were specifically going to be flying seaplanes.
The hull is a Loening design and he was the prolific float designer at the time. He also did work for Grumman, Sikorski, and EDO pre-war. Many improvements were made in seaplane and float technology during and after W.W.II. ie, postwar designs are much safer and easier to operate consistently.
All airplanes are not created equal. The PBY is much more difficult to fly than the C-47 and B-25. That's why you don't have 50 of them doing airshows like the B-25's. Just because someone is doing something with an airplane doesn't mean they won't have to ultimately pay a price for operating that aircraft in that manner.
The PBY on water is not your father's Oldsmobile!